WASHINGTON — Immigration reform had its 15 minutes of fame this week, but the spotlight sharply swung back to the equally explosive issue of gun control today thanks to a packed Senate hearing surprisingly opened by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

“Speaking is difficult. But I need to say something important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something,” Giffords said. “It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you.”

But it wasn’t just the brief, halting statement from the retired congresswoman wounded in a 2011 mass shooting that made the Judiciary Committee the must-attend hearing of the day. At one end of the witness table was Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly, at the other was the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre.

And the experts in the middle were hardly filler, either, as one attorney’s advocacy of the AR-15 as an ideal weapon for women sparked a firestorm of online debate.

“Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice,” said Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women’s Forum. “The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They’re light. They’re easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background — the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened violent criminals.”

“And if we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting women at a great disadvantage, more so than men, because they do not have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand struggle,” Trotter added.

And on the dais were lawmakers with impassioned histories in the gun-control debate, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), fresh from her new attempt to revive her 1994 assault weapons ban, to 2nd Amendment proponents on the right.

Before the hearing, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote to Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to ask that the panel allow firearms displays at future hearings on the subject.

“Our offices worked with various officials in local and federal law enforcement, as well as the Senate Sergeant at Arms, but it appears that the requirements to secure the weapons at the hearing are so impractical as to be unworkable,” the senators wrote.

“Our goal is simple — to educate fellow Senators and members of the public how and why firearms are used by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, hunting, and sporting purposes.”

Despite the lack of props, Graham invoked some imagery by noting that he owns an AR-15.

“I have an AR-15 at home and I haven’t hurt anybody and I don’t intend to do it. But I think I would be better off protecting my business or my family if there was law-and-order breakdown in my community, people roaming around my neighborhood to have the AR-15, and I don’t think that makes me an unreasonable person,” Graham said.

The senator noted the “giggles” throughout the room when Trotter advocated the weapon for women.

“Let’s agree on one thing. One bullet in the hands of the wrong person, we should all try to prevent,” Graham said. “But when you start telling me that I am unreasonable for wanting that woman [protecting her family] to have more than six bullets, or to have an AR-15 if people are roaming around my neighborhood, I reject the concept.”

Kelly argued that he and his wife, who jumped headlong into gun-control advocacy after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conn., “believe wholly and completely in the Second Amendment and that it confers upon all Americans the right to own a firearm for protection, collection, and recreation.”

“We aren’t here as victims. We’re speaking to you today as Americans. We’re a lot like many of our fellow citizens following this debate about gun violence. We’re moderates. Gabby was a Republican long before she was a Democrat,” Kelly said.

“We’re both gun owners and we take that right and the responsibilities that come with it very seriously. …Our rights are paramount, but our responsibilities are serious. And as a nation, we’re not taking responsibility for the gun rights that our founding fathers have conferred upon us.”

Witness David Kopel, a constitutional law professor and research director for the Independence Institute, said “gun controls don’t violate the Second Amendment if they are constructed so they don’t violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens.”

And the assault weapons ban, he stressed, didn’t meet that criteria. “I warned during that testimony then that it was based not on the function of guns, or how fast they fired, or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories,” Kopel said, stressing that a final study after the bill’s sunset “concluded that the law had done nothing.”

“It had not saved lives. It had not reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes. It had been a failure.”

He added that Great Britain “shows the perils of mass gun confiscation that some people have proposed.”

“It has a higher violent crime rate than the United States, and especially high rate of home invasion burglaries,” Kopel testified. “Congress has repeatedly outlawed gun registration because of the accurate recognition that another country’s, and in the United States — in New York City, gun registration has been used as a tool for confiscation.”

LaPierre continued the post-Newtown NRA message of putting armed security in schools. “It’s time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our children,” he said.

“Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals, nor do we believe that government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families,” said the NRA chief.

Feinstein congenially acknowledged that she and LaPierre have “tangled,” but other than telling him “you look pretty good, actually” she didn’t direct any questions his way.

48 Comments, 25 Threads

The fact that is hard for many people to grasp is that it doesn’t matter much how easy it is to get a gun if the people who get them are law-abiding. The danger comes when criminals get guns. But the people most affected by gun control laws are the people who pose the lowest threat.

I did not see the confab, but did our side have an testimony by citizes who used guns to prevent crime to them or their property? If not then once again, the GOP shows it really is the stupid party. For every whinning marxist, we should have a brave American supporting our side.

Will the ending of Latino Affirmative Action be a part of the comprehensive immigration reform. Or will these millions of new citizens who disrespected US law and sovereignty be preferentially promoted up the power structures of our institutions. They and their children will get in state tuition and legal discrimination to put them and there children in the seats of our universities, that we do not have even an equal shot at.

Of course it is and our government has surendered. These is the same kind of population bomb that islam has been using in Europe. There saying is, “In 2030 we take over.” Well, same thing here, because those actual numbers are more like 70-80 MILLION illegals are in this country. If those numbers are on the low side it’s only because the economy is in the crapper.

My Mauser will harvest all the AR16s and M4s I may wish to pick up off the ground. Bans or no bans I will endeavor to survive their NWO. Molotov cocktails, the ultimate weapon of small scale mass destruction. Save a few wine bottles, rags, and keep a gallon of gasoline on hand.

The police unions are interested in keeping their jobs and pensions. Any self-defense capabilities by the citizenry reduces their importance…if only very slightly. Let’s face it, the police are far better at issuing traffic and parking tickets than they are at preventing murders or serious assaults.

The police are best at showing up after the fact, to put you in a body bag. Sheriff Clarke, in Milwaukee had it right. Buy a gun, get some training, and take responsibility for protecting yourself. If the worst should happen, it will be sudden, and demand an immediate counter response.

You know, Kelly and Giffords speak of being gun owners , so my question Marky Poo is , what’s capacity of your magazines? If larger than your new masters demand, are you willing to , seriously be the example and downgrade? No? Didn’t think so. And one more thing, Marky Poo, I’d almost take your “Grassroots” foundation semi seriously if you weren’t using Obama/Biden talking points, word for word.

Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson looked everyone there in the eye and told a whopper of a lie… he said 40% of the gun purchasers in this country intentionally avoid backround checks. Last I heard, it was against the law to lie to Congress in a hearing, at least that’s what they told the major league baseball players a couple of years ago. Yet the anti-gun / anti-2nd Amendment police chief didn’t blink or hesitate in the telling of his lie. 40%… a rather unbelievable number to me, I would like to see where he came up with it, or if he pulled it out of thin air, a trait common to the left. As a retired police officer, I was disgusted and ashamed of his performance, and damn glad I never worked for him.

The police chief from Baltimore is full of s**t. Does he not remember Katrina and how the local police treated law abiding citizens? These were people sitting on their roof tops for several days waiting for rescue when gangs of Black thugs looking for money and food started to row around in boats attacking these poor people. Then the New Orleans PD threatened these same people and confiscated their guns and then LEFT them on their roof tops unarmed! The federal courts later ruled that what the police did was unconstitutional but the damage was done to the people’s trust in their government. During national crisis who knows what a local PD will do or decree. This is why we have the 2nd amendment to protect us from our government!

You make an excellent point Inspectorudy, What happened in New Orleans should
definitly be brought up. Another thing is that our Founders main intention for
the second ammendment was for the people to defend our freedoms from a tyrannical
government such as we now have. And if they want to talk about about Gabby Giffords, bring up the real target who is dead – Judge Rolls and the case he was on. If they want to bring up the movie theatre and the Newtown shooters, ask why
the massive cover up and all the unanswered questions and tell them that is the
government we fear, one that will slaughter children for thier evil ends.
And how about doing a backround check on Bari Shabazz Hussein Soebarkah ?

Its unfortunate that no one had the fortitude to explain the 2nd in raw terms as the guarantor of all the other rights, even the last redoubt of our form of government when and if the people in government should ever conspire to usurp powers not delegated to them by hook or crook. It is unfortunate that we let “shall. ot be infringed” become an embarrassement to utter in the very chambers of government charged with protecting the right.
The fight has to be bare knuckled or it will be lost, piecemeal.

Regarding the esteemed police chief–Law enforcement can’t keep 12 million people from just waltzing across the border. They can’t keep people from ever breaking into homes, right now. You’re telling me somehow they are going to magically stop any badness from happening–at all–in a more serious siutation? Please. He just wants a passive citizenry. He is not taking responsible, mature yeomen citizens into account as stakeholders, and as his equals.

“Not including guns when discussing mass killings is like not including cigarettes when discussing lung cancer,” Schumer said. “…It is now settled law that the government is never going to take away America’s guns. Progressives need not to accept this decision, but to endorse it. We’ve got to follow it, not just de jour, but de facto. You can’t argue for an expansive reading of amendments like the First, Fourth and Fifth, but see the Second Amendment through the pinhole of saying it only affects militias.”

Hoist on previous petards, and I have no trust in you. Especially given the police chief above. Drop dead.

We just had His Almightiness, the Bloomberg, flat out reject the help of the National Guard because the only ones he wanted around with guns were the cops. Spare me. You guys do not trust the people in the mass, and therefore will make subjects of all in the particular.

Schumer will continue to pretend he has acquiesced in the Heller decision, the better to reassure supporters of the 2nd amendment while they chip away at its application, until it can be arranged to appoint another liberal justice or two, then Shezzam! the 2nd amendment is about state militias after all. What do you know about that? Just as we thought all along.

This is making me so mad… “The criminals won’t go to purchase the guns because there will be a background check. We’ll stop them from the original purchase. You miss that point completely,” snapped Durbin” Really?!?! Do they watch movies, ever? The ones that showing HOW criminals buy guns? From the trunk of a black market dealer. I leaved through the turmoil of the economic crisis in Russia in 1991-1998. That’s who had guns during those years, criminals. They had no problem whatsoever finding ones. It’s low abiding citizens who were totally unprotected and defenseless. Do they do ANY research there? I am just speechless…

Excellent! This is the MO of the left and some how it works. They are all about emotion. Either the American public really is galatically stupid or they are imcomprehensibly ignorant to believe the left but they do.

The question I have for our side is how come for every Gifford or child puppet they use, we do not have a witness for our side?

I don’t think Gabby will ever fill the Brady’s shoes. I saw the Dianne Sawyer interview. Gabby can memorize a few lines but she can’t complete a sentence on her own off the cuff. Somebody has to say it. Given that little contretemps with her speech therapist’s notes being passed off as hers, I’m pretty sure she cannot write either. She can only be trotted out to smile and speak a few words with her husband finishing her sentences. It ain’t politically-correct but “potted plant” is accurate.

An interesting look at Crime Stats in the United States using data from the FBI that doesn’t seem to be getting much discussion from either the press or politicians. There has been a 50% reduction in the violent crime rate in the last twenty years and neither political party is taking credit for this? I thought politicians always wanted to take credit for good things? Perhaps they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that higher crime rates seem to correspond with inner cities? The great thing about living in the United States is you’re Free To Choose, at least for now, so feel free to Choose Your Own Crime Stats if you don’t like these.

The “Second Amendment” is non-negotiable. The U.S. govt. needs grabbed up by the scruff of the neck and thrown out the door. Removed and replaced with “Constitutional Representatives”. All 535 members. Thee “Constitution” is the “Sacred Law of the Land” period. I am glad Ms. Giffords is ok. She was the unintended target of a manufactured crisis, and is lucky to be alive. Judge John M.Rolls was thee target.

Not sure what the current numbers reflect, but I’m willing to suggest, that they will ‘trend’ to the below data. A major problem in the U.S. is ‘access” source of firearms for those who shouldn’t have access to firearms! It’s my personal opinion, that if gun owners would responsibly address the major ‘access’ problem they present (consequences with teeth) to illegal gun possession and the government responsibly address mental health issues of potential gun ownership, a lot of the ‘regulating’ problems would go away.

In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries. (Cook and Ludwig, 1997.)

In an early survey of incarcerated felons, 32 percent reported that they had acquired their most recent handgun by theft.15 A more recent survey reported that guns had been stolen by 13 percent of all arrestees, 25 percent of all juvenile arrestees, 29 percent of the gang members, and 30 percent of the drug sellers. (J.D. Wright and P. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, Inc.)

In 1997, 14 percent, or 1 in 7 male juveniles, reported carrying a gun outside the home in the previous 30-day period.9 In the inner city, the problem is more severe. One study involving 800 inner-city high school students reported that 22 percent said they carried weapons. (J.F. Sheley and J.D. Wright, Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples, Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.) An even greater number of convicted juvenile offenders reported carrying guns — 88 percent, according to another study. (Sheley and Wright)

However my personal right as recognised by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Unless you are a convicted felon or a person diagnosed with a pysocholgical disorder, you have every right to possess, or not too, own a firearm equivelent to what the current status of militia carries. The American Fathers would never fathom the idea of a “standing Army”.. way to much Cromwell for their tastes, but yet here we are.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

Haven’t you taken note that the pro gun totters have backed off that tired old mantra and for good cause? Just a reminder to read USC Title 18, 115…. then report back with your citations showing the Treason, Seditrion and Subversive Activities statutes to be unconstitutional. Maybe read Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution and the Sedition Act of 1798.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

NObody has yet attempted to infringed on the right of any citizen to bear arms with the exceptions you stated, thus far. Well, maybe the NRA since, they have a very long history of supporting government regulating of guns. Maybe check out the NRAs historic endorsements of government regulating, especially during the 20th century, say the 20s and 30s. But heres some of the more recent endorsements of ‘government regulating’ of which you’ll probably recognize. Read their history during the government proposed expansion of the ATF. Wasn’t until 2010 that the NRA took a left turn in Albuquerque to join the momentum of the tea party movement.

“NRA Executive Director Wayne R. LaPierre reiterated the group’s endorsement of this federalizing trend. While rightly and forcefully condemning the draconian, full-speed-ahead gun control proposals tendered by the notoriously anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), LaPierre offered as an alternative a reduced-speed package headed in the same direction. Said the NRA exec:

• “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to prevent all juveniles convicted of violent felonies from owning guns, for life.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to provide full funding for the National Instant Check System so it operates efficiently and instantly.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government.”

Each of the NRA’s “reasonable” endorsements constitutes support for federal usurpation of power and an expansion of the federal police state. Let’s just look at its endorsement of “full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government.” That stance puts the NRA in the position of accepting the false claims of the gun control lobby that Congress may constitutionally infringe on gun rights. It also lends credence to the notion that the anti-gun laws Congress already has passed, if fully enforced, could curb firearm-related criminal activity without eviscerating the Second Amendment. Ergo, if enforcement of existing federal legislation helps reduce crime, why not enact more to further reduce, or eliminate, crime?”http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14076-the-nra%e2%80%99s-gun-control-schizophrenia